Leonard v. Mallory

• Citation: 53 A. 778,75 Conn. 433
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 07 January 1903
• Parties: LEONARD v. MALLORY et al.

53 A. 778

75 Conn. 433

LEONARD

v. MALLORY et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 7, 1903.

Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Action by John Leonard against C. A. Mailory and another. From a judgment awarding plaintiff nominal damages on an inquest after default, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Curtis Thompson and Charles W. Murphy, for appellant.

Seymour C. Loomis and Eugene C. Dempsey, for appellees.

PRENTICE, J. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries received by him while in the employ of the defendants from the bursting of a fur-dyeing machine used by the latter in their business as hat manufacturers, and in the shop where the plaintiff worked. The court finds (1) that the machine in question and its appliances were of suitable material and construction, and reasonably adapted for the work for which they were employed; (2) that at the time of the accident the machine and its appliances were in a reasonably good condition, and suitable for their work; (3) that, when used with ordinary care, they were safe; (4) that neither the defendants nor their superintendents ever apprehended any danger from their use; (5) that the defendants placed a competent man (one Miller, their foreman) in the immediate charge of the machine; (6) that they caused him to be instructed in its proper and safe use, and furnished him with the proper appliances for doing so; and (7) that the explosion was due to the failure of said Miller to use ordinary care in the performance of his duty in the management of the machine to which he had been assigned. These facts show that the defendants as the plaintiff's master, had performed their full duty to him. They had used reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe appliances and instrumentalities for his work, and fit and competent persons as his co-laborers. The only failure in the premises arose from the operation of the machine. The machine was a fit one; its operator a competent one. The operator failed to justify the promise of his capacity and character, and was negligent. His negligence was in respect to the work of operation, and in respect to nothing else. In this work he did not represent the master. He was undertaking to perform none of the duties imposed upon the defendants. Quoad what he undertook to do in this regard, he was a mere workman. The fact that he chanced to occupy the position of foreman is of no...